According to the view named inferentialism, a conditional holds when its consequent can be inferred from its antecedent. We take inferentialism to be coherently developed in the evidential account of conditionals (Crupi and Iacona 2025). In turn, inferentialism so conceived opens the way to the logic of reasons, namely an analysis of sentences of the form ‘p is a reason for q’ that yields a compelling account of their logical properties (Crupi and Iacona 2023). We pursue the key point that for p to be a reason for q a suitably defined relation of incompatibility has to obtain between p and ¬q. As it happens, a theory of reasons based on this idea can solve challenging puzzles concerning contraposing reasons, conflicting reasons, and supererogatory reasons, and it yields new insight on some classical issues in this domain.